Posted on 02/25/2006 5:15:41 AM PST by governsleastgovernsbest
by Mark Finkelstein
February 25, 2006
Look for Ellen Ratner on the barricades next time the World Trade Organization gets together for a coffee klatsch. On this morning's Fox & Friends Weekend, Ratner hurled the verbal equivalent of a paving brick through the window of a Mickey D's. Ratner escalated the flap over the UAE ports deal to an entirely new level, claiming no foreign companies, regardless of nationality, should control our ports, or for that matter other significant chunks of our economy.
Claimed Ratner, the real issue is "what kind of jobs, what kind of outsourcing are we going to do in this country?"
When fellow "Long & the Short of It" guest Jim Pinkerton said that foreign policy considerations [such as the potential relevance of the port deal to our ability to get intelligence and site bases in the Middle East] are more important than who gets port jobs, Ratner replied skeptically "is it?" Apparently for Ratner, the ability of the longshoremen's union to place a favored few of its own is more important than our country's national security objectives.
When host Page Hopkins suggested that the debate had become muddled because people didn't understand that the UAE company wouldn't have responsibility for port security, Ratner steered things back to her anti-globalization polemic:
"I don't think that is the issue: the issue is where do we outsource who owns airplanes, railroads, all those kind of things."
Hopkins: "Are we going to cherry pick and hold Arabs to different standards?"
Ratner:
"No, no, I would feel the same way, when I realized that Britain was running the ports I felt the same way. It has nothing to do with the Arab situation. It has to do with what are we outsourcing - who owns what in America?"
Hopkins: "But if we stop all foreign investment?, where will that leave us?"
Ratner: "We have outsourced everything [sic] and now our standard of living as statistics show this week has gone down."
Pinkerton, while expressing his own concerns about the ports deal and advocating a thorough vetting during the 45-day delay, scored this point: "It doesn't hurt our standard of living to allow foreigners to invest $8 billion in the US."
But Ratner couldn't be budged from her xenophobia:
"We don't allow our radio stations to be owned by foreign investment. There are certain things we don't allow. It has nothing to do with whether they're Arabs or Canadians or British. The fact is there are certain industries we're keep in America and we're not doing that and that's a big problem."
Continued the suddenly jingoistic Ratner: "Why don't we have American companies owning some ports in China or Dubai or anywhere else? Why has American business given up on this? We're a strong country. We ought to be owning ports."
Ellen Ratner and Patrick Buchanan - who knew?
And, some on this thread, and others, are lumping those opposed to this deal as something pretty negative, as well.
Muslims are just fellow Americans to me. Some good, some bad. As long as they love America, I'll stand with them - especially if they're conservatives ;-)
My sister married a Pakistani man. He's a great guy, although he had three marriages (my sister is #3). I agree with that.
My problem with this deal is the way it has been dealt with. Almost in secret. We have people on this site rabidly defending a deal they know nothing about. We also have people rabidly opposing this deal they know nothing about.
Why couldn't this have been handled in a more publice way? We have a govt. agency doing research on this sale and yet it was attempted to push this deal through under the table. Even the president and vice-president didn't know about it (they claim).
If it had been handled in an open and above-board way I am sure almost no one would have opposed it. The way it was handled provided the ammunition to oppose it.
I'll accept the thanks. Mark Finkelstein is me, governsleastgovernsbest!
Many thanks, as always, Lancey.
By the way, I don't consider it xenophobic to oppose this deal. I can certainly see the argument against letting UAE take over. But when Ratner says she would also exclude the British and Canadians, then either she's xenphobic or, better yet, an extreme protectionist.
You're right it did appear secretive to me too when I first learned of the deal. But then I learned that that's the way the law (that set up this secret process) was written by congress. The law specifically left congress (and upper level administration) out of the process until the end after the decision has been made.
that goes for China as well.
Rat woman is as dumb as a stump.
I have no idea what qualifications she has to be on my TV.
But she ain't as bad as that ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah Julian.
I hear ya. Even today, I think being Catholic has a certain stigma to it in politics. I was raised Catholic as well.
As to your points, I think we're on the same sheet. What you seem to be saying in essence is that the apostate muslims are more prone to simply living in peace with others. If so, then I agree. But you must remember, and the same stands for Christianity although one's a faith in God, the other is a faith in a made up god, that for either one, you can't simply deviate what it is from its foundational underpinnings.
Eg., Christ is the foundation of the Christian faith. Disprove either his existence, his resurrection, or his ascension, and you've successfully disproven Christianity. Far more brilliant men than us have tried, some animously, and have been turned towards the truth and light of the gospel. Regardless, it's been twisted and contorted today, and that displeases God. What society does with it can be independent from what God looks for in us.
Islam's book is the Koran. Unlike the Bible, in which Jesus Christ commands Christians to live in peace and do unto others as they would have done unto them, and love others, the Koran calls for the domination of non-islamic peoples and what essentially boils down to forced conversions "or else." While Christianity values women inherently, Islam and the Koran place women in a lower class than men essentially. It does the same for non-muslims.
So while it's easy to deal with apostate muslims, it is nearly impossible to deal with fundamentalist muslims as you say. The big problem is that you can't distinguish between the two outwardly reducing any such efforts to a guessing game. Yet, by allowing muslim fundamentalists to integrate into a society, unless one guesses with 100% accuracy, an extreme unlikelihood, troubles are bound to occur.
As well, the root of muslim issues, namely terror and general societal won't ever go away as long as they're in the source tome for Islam. Christianity is the opposite. If everyone Christian adhered to Biblical teaching, then the world would be a much better place.
So "deviant" Islam is good, fundamental Islam is bad. Deviant Christianity can be "good" in the same sense that it likely will not cause societal woes of the magnitude and breadth that fundamental Islam will. It may cause moral woes and issues, but those are not of the variety that necessarily threaten the lives of others. Either way, fundamental Christianity does no one harm, and in fact is good in spite of people that think morality is somehow bad.
The bottom line, it's futile to hold out expecting the entire Islamic community to become apostate to one degree or another. It'll never happen, and the risks are far too great for societies that desire to remain civil to allow Islam to spread to the extent that it already has in many nations.
Unfortunately, as has been the case throughout history, even on this issue, what isn't clear to many today, will become crystal clear "tomorrow."
Oooooh. Condescension. That certainsly bodes well for this post.
Pointing out a hypocrisy does NOT mean you agree with the point made in the hypocritical statement.
Then what's your point?
Knee jerk conclusions based on no analytical thinking are definitely traits of a dumb@ss liberal.
Maybe. But, sometimes it applies to posters on site, as well.
No. It's not. It's a banal question. I did not start the condescension.
Well, I did acknowledge it would be hard for you to understand. Thanks for proving me right.
Not really. I guess I have to be less circumspect and more adroit. "What's your point?" referred to your pointing out someone's hypocrisy and then claiming you don't agree with the opposing viewpoint. Again, why post the hypocrisy if it's something you agree with.
Ah,self admission is good for the soul.
Again, I was referring to you. But, you knew that. I left it just ambiguous enough for you to expose yourself.
Give it up, you're way out of you're league.
I do not pretend to know everything and try to keep an open mind on any issue that does not include compromising one's morals. I hope to keep learning and expanding my knowledge until the day I die.
I guess that means you are finished having an open mind and learning?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.